IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Apache County. Cause No.
|
|
- Candice Kory Wilson
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ROBERT PAYNE, an individual; LEVI SLAUGHTER and DEBORAH SLAUGHTER, husband and wife, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. LLOYD LEMONS and CHRISTA LEMONS, husband and wife; EVERETT PEMBERTON, an individual, Defendants/Appellants. No. 1 CA-CV DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure Appeal from the Superior Court in Apache County Cause No. CV The Honorable Donna J. Grimsley, Judge REVERSED AND REMANDED Holland Law Firm, PLLC By Joseph E. Holland Attorneys for Appellees Higgins, Hitchcock & Hesse, PLLC By Robert S. Hitchcock Attorneys for Appellants Snowflake Pinetop
2 J O H N S E N, Judge 1 Lloyd Lemons, Christina Lemons and Everett Pemberton ( Appellants appeal from the superior court s grant of a motion for partial summary judgment on liability in favor of Robert Payne, Levi Slaughter and Deborah Slaughter ( Appellees and denial of Appellants motion for summary judgment. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 2 Appellants own adjacent 40-acre parcels in the Ranch of the White Mountains subdivision. In 1981, when Ranch of the White Mountains was subdivided, its owner dedicated and recorded a 50-foot public roadway and utility easement along all four sides of each parcel in the subdivision, including Appellants parcels. Jeff Lake Road, a dirt road not maintained by the county, runs along the southern boundary of Appellants parcels within the 50-foot easement. Appellees must use Jeff Lake Road to access their properties. 3 After a heavy rainfall in 2007 made Jeff Lake Road difficult to navigate, Appellees drove on the road s north shoulder (but still within the easement to bypass difficult patches. According to Appellants, Appellees bypass route destroyed vegetation, causing erosion that threatened a fence on the Lemonses parcel. To protect the fence, Appellants erected a new fence blocking Appellees bypass on the north side of the 2
3 road and created an alternate bypass on Jeff Lake Road s southern shoulder. Appellants contend the fence they constructed did not intrude on the road as it previously existed; Appellees, however, maintain that the new fence partially blocked the existing road. On September 18 and 25, 2007, Appellants received letters from Appellees counsel demanding they remove the new fence. Appellants complied. In early October 2007, after removing the fence, Appellants dug a drainage ditch within the easement, which, according to Appellees, was located in the approximate location of the recently removed fence. 4 On December 6, 2007, Appellees filed a complaint alleging Appellants were negligent per se because their conduct violated Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. sections (2001, obstructing a highway or other public thoroughfare, and (Supp. 2009, diverting the flow of waters in a watercourse creating a hazard to life or property. After Appellants answered, denying the allegations, Appellees moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of Appellants liability. Appellants filed their own motion for summary judgment, alleging their actions did not interfere with Appellees right to the easement, that A.R.S did not apply, that Appellants did not violate A.R.S or 48-3
4 3615 and that Appellants actions were not the proximate cause of any injury suffered by Appellees. 5 The superior court set a hearing on the parties motions at which, without explanation, it also heard testimony and admitted exhibits. The court entered an unsigned order finding Appellants had violated A.R.S and , were negligent per se and therefore were liable to Appellees for damages. After directing Appellees to prepare an order for its signature, the court issued a signed order finding Appellants liable to Appellees for their actions in blocking the easement along Jeff Lake Road and ordering Appellants to refrain from attempting to maintain Jeff Lake Road past their current driveways, to remove existing fences lying within the easement and to avoid intentionally causing surface waters to run down the easement to Appellees detriment. The superior court then scheduled a hearing on the issue of damages. Before the damages hearing was held, however, Appellants filed a notice of appeal of the signed order on liability. DISCUSSION A. Jurisdiction. 6 The general rule is that jurisdiction of appeals is limited to final judgments which dispose of all claims and all parties. Maria v. Najera, 222 Ariz. 306,, 5, 214 P.3d 394, 395 (App (quoting Musa v. Adrian, 130 Ariz. 311, 4
5 312, 636 P.2d 89, 90 (1981. Arizona Revised Statutes (G (2003, however, grants this court jurisdiction over an interlocutory judgment which determines the rights of the parties and directs an accounting or other proceeding to determine the amount of the recovery. A party may appeal such a judgment when the superior court has exercised its discretion to expressly direct that the only remaining issue is the amount of recovery. Bilke v. State, 206 Ariz. 462, 468, 28, 80 P.3d 269, 275 ( Here, the signed order from which Appellants appeal did not dispose of all claims because, although it granted Appellees motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, it did not dispose of their damage claim. The superior court did not expressly state that the only remaining issue was the amount of Appellees recovery, but after entering the order on liability, the court set a scheduling conference regarding the issue of damages only. Therefore, because the court s order held Appellants liable to Appellees and left open only the matter of damages, we have jurisdiction of Appellees appeal of the order. A.R.S (G; see Bilke, 206 Ariz. at 462, 80 P.3d at 269. B. Standard of Review. 8 We review the superior court s grant of summary judgment de novo and view the facts in the light most favorable 5
6 to the non-moving party. Andrews v. Blake, 205 Ariz. 236, 240, 12, 69 P.3d 7, 11 (2003. Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, deposition, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(c(1; see also Orme School v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301, 309, 802 P.2d 1000, 1008 ( C. Negligence Per Se. 9 The superior court held Appellants actions in constructing the fence and digging the ditch violated A.R.S and and constituted negligence per se. 1. A.R.S Pursuant to A.R.S , [a] person commits obstructing a highway or other public thoroughfare if, having no legal privilege to do so, such person, alone or with other persons, recklessly interferes with the passage of any highway or public thoroughfare by creating an unreasonable inconvenience or hazard. A violation of this section is a class 3 misdemeanor. A.R.S (B. 1 We presume the superior court treated testimony offered at the hearing in the same manner as it would have treated affidavits or deposition testimony presented in support of the cross-motions for summary judgment, and so do we. 6
7 11 The superior court granted Appellees partial summary judgment motion because it found Appellants actions in blocking the roadway violated A.R.S In their cross-motions for summary judgment and on appeal, the parties dispute whether the fence Appellants constructed blocked a portion of Jeff Lake Road as it had existed before it was washed out or blocked only the bypass route Appellees created to the north of Jeff Lake Road. At oral argument on the motions for summary judgment, however, Appellees counsel stated, the dispute is not whether or not [the fence] obstructed a roadway, but whether it was obstructing an easement. 12 Even if we do not take this statement as a concession that the fence did not enter the roadway, a disputed issue of fact exists as to whether the fence obstructed any part of Jeff Lake Road. Viewing the facts most favorable to Appellants, we cannot conclude based on the evidence offered on the cross motions for summary judgment that the fence entered the roadway. Appellants submitted a declaration of Lloyd Lemons in which he avowed that [t]he newly constructed fence did not block Jeff Lake Road as it existed. Although Appellees assert the fence entered the roadway, they offered no affidavit in support of that contention, but relied instead on photographs from which no conclusions can be drawn. Because Appellants offered evidence that at the very least created a genuine issue of material fact 7
8 on this issue, the superior court erred in granting summary judgment. See Andrews, 205 Ariz. at 240, 13, 69 P.3d at Additionally, to the extent they assert Appellants violated A.R.S by blocking the easement (rather than, or in addition to, blocking Jeff Lake Road, Appellees provided no authority either in the superior court or on appeal for the proposition that the whole of an easement for ingress and egress constitutes a highway or other public thoroughfare within the meaning of the statute. When interpreting a statute, we first look to the statutory language with the goal of ascertaining and giving effect to the legislature s intent. Lincoln v. Holt, 215 Ariz. 21, 24, 7, 156 P.3d 438, 441 (App We give words and phrases their ordinary meanings unless it appears the legislature intended a different meaning. State v. Wise, 137 Ariz. 468, 470 n.3, 671 P.2d 909, 911 n.3 (1983. When words are not defined in the statute and there is no indication the legislature intended an extraordinary meaning, we may turn to an established, widely respected dictionary. Id.; see also Lincoln, 215 Ariz. at 24, 7, 156 P.3d at The legislature has provided no definition for highway or public thoroughfare for purposes of A.R.S but defines public as affecting or likely to affect a substantial group of persons. A.R.S (2 (
9 The Random House Webster s Dictionary provides the following definitions: Highway: a main road, esp. one between towns or cities... ; any public road or waterway; any main or ordinary route, track, or course. Thoroughfare: a road, street, or the like, that leads at each end into another street; a major road or highway; a passage or way through: no thoroughfare. Random House Webster s Unabridged Dictionary 903, 1974 (Deluxe ed These definitions of highway and thoroughfare do not support the proposition that A.R.S applies to the portion of an easement for ingress and egress that is not a road or street. Certainly those portions of the easement existing beyond the boundaries of Jeff Lake Road do not constitute a main road, or a road, street, or the like. Similarly, even those portions of the easement beyond the road that travelers might drive upon to avoid rough patches when the road is muddy are not ordinary route[s], track[s], or course[s]. Thus, even assuming Jeff Lake Road constitutes a highway or public thoroughfare, we conclude the statute does not apply to those portions of the easement beyond the roadway. As a result, the superior court erred in finding that Appellants actions violated A.R.S
10 2. A.R.S Arizona Revised Statutes designates engaging in any development or to divert, retard or obstruct the flow of waters in a watercourse if it creates a hazard to life or property without securing the written authorization required by a class 2 misdemeanor. The legislature has defined watercourse for purposes of the statute to mean a lake, river, creek, stream, wash, arroyo, channel or other topographic feature on or over which waters flow at least periodically. Watercourse includes specifically designated areas in which substantial flood damage may occur. A.R.S (12 (Supp The superior court found that Appellants violated A.R.S , thereby committing negligence per se. Appellees contend the area of the easement on which Appellants dug the trench constitutes a topographic feature on or over which waters flow at least periodically and where substantial flood damage may occur. See A.R.S (12, They support this argument with the superior court s finding that during heavy rains, runoff flows into a nearby wash. 18 Appellees, however, provide no authority for the proposition that the easement constitutes a watercourse to which A.R.S applies. First, the provision of that includes as watercourses areas in which substantial flood 10
11 damage may occur applies only to areas specially designated as such. Appellees make no showing or suggestion that the easement has been specially designated as an area in which substantial flood damage may occur. 19 Furthermore, we disagree that the easement falls within the definition of a watercourse as a topographic feature on or over which waters flow at least periodically. See A.R.S (12, Though the phrase topographical feature is somewhat ambiguous, Campbell Estates, Inc. v. Bates, 21 Ariz. App. 162, 517 P.2d 515 (1973, provides guidance. In determining the difference between surface waters and waters in a watercourse, the court in that case turned to a previous Arizona Supreme Court decision which stated, [T]he essential characteristics of a water course are a channel, consisting of well-defined bed and banks, and a current of water. And the best-reasoned cases go to the extent that without all these characteristics there can be no water course. Id. at 166, 517 P.2d at 519 (quoting Maricopa County Mun. Water Conservation Dist. No. 1 v. Sw. Cotton Co., 39 Ariz. 65, 85, 4 P.2d 369, 376 ( The superior court in this case found that when it rains, surface waters flow over the easement toward a wash, sometimes causing Jeff Lake Road to wash out. Appellees have made no showing that the easement contains any feature 11
12 exhibiting a bed, channel, banks or any other such characteristic of a watercourse that Appellants diverted, retarded or obstructed by constructing the ditch. See A.R.S Under Appellees theory, any area on which rain waters fall would constitute a watercourse for purposes of Therefore, we conclude does not apply to Appellants conduct and that, as a result, the court erred in finding Appellants negligent per se for violating the statute. D. Interference with the Easement. 21 Appellants argue that instead of deciding the parties cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of negligence per se, the superior court should have looked to the law governing easements. Appellants contend that under those legal principles, their construction of the fence and ditch was privileged, entitling them to summary judgment on Appellees claims against them. Although we agree that the superior court erred in granting judgment in favor of Appellees on their claims alleging negligence per se, we cannot conclude the court should have entered summary judgment in Appellants favor under the law governing easements. 22 When considering whether a servient estate owner is entitled to burden an easement by erecting improvements, such as fences and gates, [courts] have employed a test that first examines the terms of the easement and then, assuming the 12
13 easement terms are not preclusive, balances the needs of the parties. Hunt v. Richardson, 216 Ariz. 114, 121, 21, 163 P.3d 1064, 1071 (App (internal quotation omitted. As stated, the court first must look to whether the terms of the easement prohibit the servient owner s improvements; the servient owner is prohibited from making improvements inconsistent with the easement s terms, even if the improvements do not unreasonably interfere with use of the easement. Id. at 121, 22, 163 P.3d at If the court finds that the easement s terms do not preclude construction of the improvement, the court next must balance the parties interests. Hunt, 216 Ariz. at 121, 23, 163 P.3d at The servient estate owner may make any use of the servient estate not barred by the easement s terms that does not unreasonably interfere with enjoyment of the easement. Id. At the same time, the easement holder s use of an ambiguous easement is constrained to that which is necessary or reasonable under the circumstances. Neal v. Brown, 219 Ariz. 14, 19, 19, 191 P.3d 1030, 1035 (App (citing Squaw Peak Cmty. Covenant Church v. Anozira Dev., Inc., 149 Ariz. 409, 412, 719 P.2d 295, 298 (App Additionally, the easement holder s permissible uses of the easement include those which do not unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of the servient estate and do not cause it unreasonable damage. Paxson v. 13
14 Glovitz, 203 Ariz. 63, 70, 36, 50 P.3d 420, 427 (App (quoting Restatement (Third of Property 4.10 (2000. What is reasonable becomes an issue of fact for the trier of fact to determine considering all relevant circumstances. Squaw Peak, 149 Ariz. at 412, 719 P.2d at We may affirm summary judgment on any ground supported by the record and the law. Logerquist v. Danforth, 188 Ariz. 16, 18, 932 P.2d 281, 283 (App The record in this case, however, does not allow us to determine that there exists no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the easement s terms prohibit Appellants actions or whether Appellees use of the easement and Appellants actions were reasonable under the circumstances. CONCLUSION 25 For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment entered in Appellees favor and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision. Although Appellants request their attorney s fees on appeal, they cite no legal authority for their request, which we deny. Fid. Nat. Title Co. v. Town of Marana, 220 Ariz. 247, 251, 17, 204 P.3d 1096, 1100 (App We grant Appellants their costs on appeal, contingent 14
15 upon their compliance with Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 21. /s/ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ PATRICIA A. OROZCO, Presiding Judge /s/ JON W. THOMPSON, Judge 15
ARIZONA TAX COURT TX /18/2006 HONORABLE MARK W. ARMSTRONG
HONORABLE MARK W. ARMSTRONG CLERK OF THE COURT L. Slaughter Deputy FILED: CAMELBACK ESPLANADE ASSOCIATION, THE JIM L WRIGHT v. MARICOPA COUNTY JERRY A FRIES PAUL J MOONEY PAUL MOORE UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE DOMINICK and LYNN MULTARI, Husband and wife, v. Plaintiffs/Appellees/ Cross-Appellants, RICHARD D. and CARMEN GRESS, as trustees under agreement dated
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE MALAD, INC., an Arizona corporation, v. Plaintiff/Appellant, ROBERT C. MILLER and JANICE MILLER, husband and wife, Defendants/Appellees. 1 CA-CV 07-0680
More informationNO. COA Filed: 15 November Easements- servient tenant s impermissible interference with dominant tenant s use-- motion to dismiss
FRANK H. R. FALKSON, KENNETH COLLIER, FRANCIS CARTER, ALBERT G. FOLCHER, III, VICTOR VANCE, BURT MOODY, AND WATERWAY LANDING - POCOSIN FARMS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiffs, v. CLAYTON LAND CORPORATION,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MARILYN A. DZINGLE TRUST, by MARILYN A. DZINGLE, Trustee, UNPUBLISHED February 14, 2017 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 330614 Isabella Circuit Court JAMES EARL PLATT, LC No.
More informationCAROL TIMMONS, A SINGLE WOMAN, Plaintiff/Appellant, ROSS DRESS FOR LESS, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, Defendant/Appellee.
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO CAROL TIMMONS, A SINGLE WOMAN, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. ROSS DRESS FOR LESS, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, Defendant/Appellee. No. 2 CA-CV 2013-0053 Filed March
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed February 23, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Michael R.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 1-087 / 10-0949 Filed February 23, 2011 MARGARET ELLIOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. WAYNE JASPER, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE December 13, 2012 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE December 13, 2012 Session BARRY RUSSELL, ET AL. v. HENDERSONVILLE UTILITY DISTRICT Appeal from the Chancery Court for Sumner County No. 2010C120 Tom E.
More informationWALTER A. HEUSCHKEL and BONNIE L. HEUSCHKEL, husband and wife, Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants/Appellees,
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationSTATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A Jeffrey Apitz, et al., Appellants, vs. Terry Hopkins, et al., Respondents.
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A14-1166 Jeffrey Apitz, et al., Appellants, vs. Terry Hopkins, et al., Respondents. Filed May 18, 2015 Reversed and remanded Peterson, Judge Itasca County District
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS WILLIAM KULINSKI, RONALD KULINSKI, and RUSSELL KULINSKI, UNPUBLISHED December 9, 2014 Plaintiffs-Appellees, v No. 318091 Lenawee Circuit Court ILENE KULINSKI, LC No.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs September 4, 2018
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs September 4, 2018 10/05/2018 HERBERT T. STAFFORD v. MATTHEW L. BRANAN Appeal from the Chancery Court for Sequatchie County No. 2482
More informationNo July 27, P.2d 939
Printed on: 10/20/01 Page # 1 111 Nev. 998, 998 (1995) Schwartz v. State, Dep't of Transp. MARTIN J. SCHWARTZ and PHYLLIS R. SCHWARTZ, Trustees of the MARTIN J. SCHWARTZ and PHYLLIS R. SCHWARTZ Revocable
More informationCommonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: JANUARY 8, 2016; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2014-CA-000767-MR RUTH C. DEHART APPELLANT APPEAL FROM GRAVES CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE DENNIS R.
More informationPresent: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, and Mims, JJ.
Present: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, and Mims, JJ. MCCARTHY HOLDINGS LLC OPINION BY v. Record No. 101031 JUSTICE S. BERNARD GOODWYN September 16, 2011 VINCENT W. BURGHER, III FROM THE CIRCUIT
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D., 2013
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D., 2013 Opinion filed September 25, 2013. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D12-2257 Lower Tribunal No.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II RANDALL INGOLD TRUST, by and through its trustee, BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., No. 41115-6-II Respondent, v. STEPHANIE L. ARMOUR, DOES 1-5, UNPUBLISHED
More informationSTANLEY F. STAZENSKI and PATRICIA STAZENSKI, husband and wife, Plaintiffs/Appellants,
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationCASE NO. 1D An appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County. Marci L. Goodman, Judge.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA GLORIA DIANNE AND FREDDIE L. WINGATE, Husband and Wife, Appellants, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ROBERT LITTLE and BARBARA LITTLE, Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants- Appellants, UNPUBLISHED March 23, 2006 v No. 257781 Oakland Circuit Court THOMAS TRIVAN, DARLENE TRIVAN,
More informationNo. 49,535-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * versus * * * * *
Judgment rendered January 14, 2015. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by art. 2166, La. C.C.P. No. 49,535-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * COURTNEY
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Coconino County
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF
More informationDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2010 MT 23N
February 3 2010 DA 09-0302 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2010 MT 23N WILLIAM R. BARTH, JR. and PARADISE VALLEY FORD LINCOLN MERCURY, INC., v. Plaintiffs and Appellees, CEASAR JHA and NEW
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION May 16, 2006 9:10 a.m. v No. 265717 Jackson Circuit Court TRACY L. PICKRELL, LC No.
More informationALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
REL: 05/15/2015 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO JULY TERM, 2018
Note: In the case title, an asterisk (*) indicates an appellant and a double asterisk (**) indicates a crossappellant. Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 6 June Appeal by defendants from order entered 18 July 2016 by Judge Jay D.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA16-1189 Filed: 6 June 2017 Onslow County, No. 14 CVS 4011 KINGS HARBOR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff, v. ROY T. GOLDMAN and wife, DIANA H. GOLDMAN,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY
[Cite as Am. Tax Funding, L.L.C. v. Archon Realty Co., 2012-Ohio-5530.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY AMERICAN TAX FUNDING, LLC : : Appellate Case No. 25096
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: JACQUELYN THOMPSON WILLIAM F. THOMPSON Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: BRIAN L. OAKS Kokomo, Indiana LAWRENCE R. MURRELL Kokomo, Indiana IN THE COURT
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MATTHEW J. SCHUMACHER, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION April 1, 2003 9:10 a.m. v No. 233143 Midland Circuit Court DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,
More informationBARBARA BEACH OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS FEBRUARY 27, 2014 JAY TURIM, TRUSTEE, ET AL.
PRESENT: All the Justices BARBARA BEACH OPINION BY v. Record No. 130682 JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS FEBRUARY 27, 2014 JAY TURIM, TRUSTEE, ET AL. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA Lisa B. Kemler,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In re Estate of ROBERT R. WILLIAMS. J. BRUCE WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED December 6, 2005 v No. 262203 Kalamazoo Probate Court Estate of ROBERT R. WILLIAMS,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 3 November 2015
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA14-1222 Filed: 3 November 2015 Buncombe County, No. 13 CVS 3992 THE RESIDENCES AT BILTMORE CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff, v. POWER DEVELOPMENT,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS COVENTRY PARKHOMES CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION October 25, 2012 9:05 a.m. v No. 304188 Oakland Circuit Court FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
More informationCertiorari not Applied for COUNSEL
1 SANDOVAL COUNTY BD. OF COMM'RS V. RUIZ, 1995-NMCA-023, 119 N.M. 586, 893 P.2d 482 (Ct. App. 1995) SANDOVAL COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Plaintiff, vs. BEN RUIZ and MARGARET RUIZ, his wife, Defendants-Appellees,
More informationNO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1996
NO. 95-519 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1996 A.C. WARNACK, Trustee of the A.C. WARNACK TRUST; and KENNETH R. MCDONALD, v. Plaintiffs, Appellants and Cross-Respondents, THE CONEEN FAMILY
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JOHN SCHOENHERR, SHELLEY SCHOENHERR, TIMOTHY SPINA, and ELIZABETH SPINA, UNPUBLISHED November 22, 2002 Plaintiffs-Appellees, v No. 235601 Wayne Circuit Court VERNIER
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE FILED. December 9, Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk AT KNOXVILLE
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE FILED December 9, 1999 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk AT KNOXVILLE E1998-00412-COA-R3-CV WESTSIDE HEALTH AND RACQUET C/A NO. 03A01-9810-CH-00332 CLUB, INC.,
More informationTHE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County. Cause No.
THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE JAMES D. SPEROS, a married man, dealing with his sole and separate property, v. KRISTINE J.P. YU, a/k/a KRISTINE YU and JOHN DOE YU, wife and husband,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE WILDEARTH GUARDIANS, INC, ) No. 1 CA-CV 12-0338 ) Plaintiff/Appellant/ ) DEPARTMENT A Cross-Appellee, ) ) O P I N I O N v. ) ) VANESSA HICKMAN, Arizona
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. Appellant/Defendant, v. Case No. 12-C Appellant/Defendant. Case No.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN CITY OF MILWAUKEE, Appellant/Defendant, v. Case No. 12-C-0728 RITA GILLESPIE, Appellee/Plaintiff. CITY OF MILWAUKEE, Appellant/Defendant. Case
More informationHoiska v. Town of East Montpelier ( ) 2014 VT 80. [Filed 18-Jul-2014]
Hoiska v. Town of East Montpelier (2013-274) 2014 VT 80 [Filed 18-Jul-2014] NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE August 15, 2007 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE August 15, 2007 Session JUDITH ANN FORD v. JAMES W. ROBERTS, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Hamilton County No. 01-0846 Howell N. Peoples, Chancellor
More informationNOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT ROBERT BLINN, Appellant, v. Case No. 2D14-1636 FLORIDA POWER &
More informationE COA-R3-CV ) C/A NO. 03A CV ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) ) ) APPEAL AS OF RIGHT FROM THE v. ) CLAIBORNE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE FILED February 24, 2000 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk STEVE MYERS, E1998-00732-COA-R3-CV ) C/A NO. 03A01-9812-CV-00407 ) Plaintiff-Appellant,
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA HERON AT DESTIN WEST BEACH & BAY RESORT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA HERON AT DESTIN WEST BEACH & BAY RESORT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS LAKESIDE OAKLAND DEVELOPMENT, L.C., Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION February 1, 2002 9:10 a.m. v H & J BEEF COMPANY, and Defendant-Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant,
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA
Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFIC REPORTER. Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, 303 K Street, Anchorage,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PAUL MARINO and LINDA MARINO, Plaintiffs-Appellants, UNPUBLISHED June 19, 2001 v No. 215764 Wayne Circuit Court GRAYHAVEN ESTATES LTD., LLC, LC No. 98-813922-CH GRAYHAVEN-LENOX
More informationCLAIRE CROWLEY & a. TOWN OF LOUDON THE LEDGES GOLF LINKS, INC. CLAIRE CROWLEY. Argued: September 21, 2011 Opinion Issued: December 8, 2011
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
More informationJAMES M. RAMSEY, JR., ET AL. OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE CLEO E. POWELL APRIL 16, 2015 COMMISSIONER OF HIGHWAYS
PRESENT: All the Justices JAMES M. RAMSEY, JR., ET AL. OPINION BY v. Record No. 140929 JUSTICE CLEO E. POWELL APRIL 16, 2015 COMMISSIONER OF HIGHWAYS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
More informationDaniel M. Schwarz of Cole Scott & Kissane, P.A., Plantation, for Appellants.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA SILVER BEACH TOWERS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., SILVER BEACH TOWERS EAST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., and SILVER BEACH TOWERS WEST
More informationTanglewood Prop. Owners' Ass'n v. Isenhour. Opinion
Tanglewood Prop. Owners' Ass'n v. Isenhour Court of Appeals of North Carolina June 7, 2017, Heard in the Court of Appeals; August 1, 2017, Filed No. COA17-101 Reporter 2017 N.C. App. LEXIS 631 *; 2017
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-09-00458-CV Pradip Podder, Appellant v. Funding Partners L.P.; and Acquisition Funding Source, Inc., Appellees FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 1 August TANGLEWOOD PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA17-101 Filed: 1 August 2017 Brunswick County, No. 14 CVD 888 TANGLEWOOD PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff, v. BRANDON WAYNE ISENHOUR; ROBERT
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS HAZEL PARK MANAGEMENT, LLC, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant- Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 30, 2014 v No. 318779 Oakland Circuit Court C4 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, LC No.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ALVERA PAXSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, STEPHEN L. COX, Attorney-Appellant, v. ROBERT J. GLOVITZ, a single man dealing with his sole and separate property,
More informationWilliam S. Graessle of William S. Graessle, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellees. In this eminent domain action, the JEA appeals a final order awarding
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA JEA, A BODY POLITIC AND CORPORATE OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF
More informationNortheast Phoenix Holdings v. Winkleman, 193 P.3d 776, 219 Ariz. 82 (Ariz. App., 2008)
193 P.3d 776 219 Ariz. 82 NORTHEAST PHOENIX HOLDINGS, LLC, Petitioner, v. Mark WINKLEMAN, in his official capacity as State Land Commissioner, Respondent, and Jaren Associates # 4, Intervenor. No. 1 CA-SA
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 114,113 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. GFTLENEXA, LLC Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 114,113 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS BRIDGESTONE RETAIL OPERATIONS, LLC D/B/A FIRESTONE COMPLETE AUTO CARE, Appellant, v. GFTLENEXA, LLC Appellee. MEMORANDUM
More informationA Deep Dive into Easements
A Deep Dive into Easements Diane B. Davies, John A. Lovett, James C. Smith I. Introduction Easements are ubiquitous in the United States. They serve an invaluable function. They allow persons and property
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2004 GEORGE T. BLACK, GLORIA D. BLACK, ET AL, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D03-2306 ORANGE COUNTY, ETC., Appellee. Opinion filed
More informationIN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS. ooooo ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ooooo The Abraham & Associates Trust and Michael Robert Barker, Trustee, v. Plaintiffs and Appellants, James M. Park, Tori L. Park, Dennis Carr, and Donette Carr, Defendants
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JACKSON COUNTY
[Cite as Watson v. Neff, 2009-Ohio-2062.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JACKSON COUNTY Jeffrey S. Watson, Trustee, : : Plaintiff-Appellant, : : Case No. 08CA12 v. : : DECISION
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA David J. Pitti, : Appellant : : v. : No. 2614 C.D. 2003 : Argued: June 10, 2004 Pocono Business Furniture, Inc., : Robert M. Vonson, and Stephen : Jennings : BEFORE:
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS E. RICHARD RANDOLPH and BETTY J. RANDOLPH, Plaintiffs-Appellants, FOR PUBLICATION October 3, 2006 9:00 a.m. v No. 259943 Newaygo Circuit Court CLARENCE E. REISIG, MONICA
More informationMichael Anthony Shaw and Joseph D. Steadman, Jr., of Jones Walker LLP, Miami, for Appellant.
WHITNEY BANK, a Mississippi state chartered bank, formerly known as HANCOCK BANK, a Mississippi state chartered bank, as assignee of the FDIC as receiver for PEOPLES FIRST COMMUNITY BANK, a Florida banking
More informationv. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN BOUNDARY ASSOCIATION, INC. January 13, 2006
PRESENT: All the Justices RALPH WHITE, ET AL. v. Record No. 050417 OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN BOUNDARY ASSOCIATION, INC. January 13, 2006 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF WILLIAMSBURG
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JOHN T. RUDY and ANN LIZETTE RUDY, Plaintiffs-Appellees, UNPUBLISHED February 22, 2011 v No. 293501 Cass Circuit Court DAN LINTS and VICKI LINTS, LC No. 08-000138-CZ
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS NATHAN KLOOSTER, Petitioner-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION December 15, 2009 9:10 a.m. v No. 286013 Tax Tribunal CITY OF CHARLEVOIX, LC No. 00-323883 Respondent-Appellee.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE HENRY BLACK, MARY LOU BLACK, RAYMOND BUCHTA, W. SCOTT BLACK, AND BLACKBALL PROPERTIES, Defendants Below- Appellants, v. GARY STAFFIERI and ADRIA CHARLES STAFFIERI,
More informationPresent: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, Lacy, Keenan, and Koontz, JJ., and Whiting, Senior Justice
Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, Lacy, Keenan, and Koontz, JJ., and Whiting, Senior Justice STUARTS DRAFT SHOPPING CENTER, L.P. OPINION BY v. Record No. 951364 SENIOR JUSTICE HENRY H. WHITING
More informationNOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT DANIEL WESNER, d/b/a FISH TALES, Appellant, v. Case No. 2D16-4646
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 13-50818 Document: 00512655017 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/06/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 6, 2014 JOHN F. SVOBODA;
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 21 May 2013
NO. COA12-860 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 21 May 2013 REO PROPERTIES CORPORATION, GRADY I. INGLE and ELIZABETH B. ELLS, solely in their capacities as Substitute Trustees under certain Deed of
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT HOCKING COUNTY APPEARANCES:
[Cite as Esteph v. Grumm, 175 Ohio App.3d 516, 2008-Ohio-1121.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT HOCKING COUNTY Esteph et al., : Case No. 07CA6 Appellees, : v. : DECISION AND JUDGMENT
More informationv. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN September 18, 2009 MICHAEL D. DELORE, ET AL.
PRESENT: All the Justices HENRY ANDERSON, JR., ET AL. v. Record No. 082416 OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN September 18, 2009 MICHAEL D. DELORE, ET AL. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BEDFORD COUNTY
More informationAPPEAL OF DAVID H. JOHNSON (New Hampshire Board of Tax and Land Appeals) Argued: September 15, 2010 Opinion Issued: January 26, 2011
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed August 25, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cedar County, Mark J.
MARK BINNS and GRACE BINNS, Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 0-498 / 09-1571 Filed August 25, 2010 DON STEWART and BRENDA STEWART, Defendants-Appellants. Judge. Appeal from
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT GENERAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, INC., Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellee. No. 4D14-0699 [October 14, 2015]
More information2012 IL App (2d) No Opinion filed January 18, 2012 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT
No. 2-11-0060 Opinion filed January 18, 2012 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT MARJORIE C. HAHN, Successor Trustee to ) Appeal from the Circuit Court Robert C. Hahn, Trustee Under Trust
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT WAYNE GOLDMAN, MARIANNE GOLDMAN and SEAN ACOSTA, Appellants, v. STEPHEN LUSTIG, Appellee. No. 4D16-1933 [January 24, 2018] CORRECTED OPINION
More information2006 VT 136. No On Appeal from v. Lamoille Superior Court. Bruce Robson and Antonio Latona May Term, 2006
Sawyer v. Robson (2005-372) 2006 VT 136 [Filed 22-Dec-2006] NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
More informationCASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA KATHLEEN GREEN and LEE ANN MOODY, v. Appellants, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
More informationOPINION. No CV. Tomas ZUNIGA and Berlinda A. Zuniga, Appellants. Margaret L. VELASQUEZ, Appellee
OPINION No. Tomas ZUNIGA and Berlinda A. Zuniga, Appellants v. Margaret L. VELASQUEZ, Appellee From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2005-CI-16979 Honorable David A.
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MICHAEL DAVID CORBIN and MARILYN J. CORBIN, UNPUBLISHED August 30, 2002 Plaintiffs-Appellees, V No. 229712 Oakland Circuit Court DAVID KURKO and ISABEL KURKO, LC No.
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. PAUL LYNN & a. WENTWORTH BY THE SEA MASTER ASSOCIATION. Argued: January 7, 2016 Opinion Issued: May 27, 2016
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
More informationSTATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT - ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION. } In re Gould Accessory Building } Docket No Vtec Permit (After Remand) } }
STATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT - ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION } In re Gould Accessory Building } Docket No. 14-1-12 Vtec Permit (After Remand) } } Decision on the Merits Donald and Julie Gould (Applicants)
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC LOWER COURT CASE NO. 3D PRIME WEST, INC. and PRIME WEST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC 05-1697 LOWER COURT CASE NO. 3D04-471 PRIME WEST, INC. and PRIME WEST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioners, v. LORENZO CAMARGO and ANA CAMARGO, his wife;
More informationAPPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY Beatrice J. Brickhouse, District Judge
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: 2014-NMCA-097 Filing Date: July 22, 2014 Docket No. 32,310 THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON f/k/a THE BANK OF NEW YORK, NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS KENNETH H. CORDES, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant- Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 7, 2012 v No. 304003 Alpena Circuit Court GREAT LAKES EXCAVATING & LC No. 09-003102-CZ EQUIPMENT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON July 21, 2009 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON July 21, 2009 Session BENTON COUNTY, TENNESSEE, ET AL. v. VERN FRANKLIN CHUMNEY Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Benton County No. 7CCV-1149 Charles
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. BENJORAY, INC., v. Plaintiff-Respondent, ACADEMY HOUSE CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER,
More informationNo. 102,355 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. JOHN BROWNBACK, Appellee,
No. 102,355 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS JOHN BROWNBACK, Appellee, v. JOHN/JANE DOE, TRUSTEE OF THE THOMAS M. GILKISON TRUST, Dated December 13, 1980; and RICHARD WILSON and MARY WILSON,
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as Adams v. Glitz & Assoc., Inc., 2012-Ohio-4593.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97984 BERNARD ADAMS PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT vs.
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Sarah O Layer McCready, Appellant v. No. 1762 C.D. 2016 Argued April 4, 2017 Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission BEFORE HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge HONORABLE
More informationSheree Dyer, et al. v. Eva Criegler, et al., No. 2856, September Term, 2000 NEGLIGENCE LEAD POISONING
HEADNOTE: Sheree Dyer, et al. v. Eva Criegler, et al., No. 2856, September Term, 2000 NEGLIGENCE LEAD POISONING A real estate agent or broker who lists and promotes residential property for rental is not
More informationJUDGMENT AFFIRMED. Division VI Opinion by: JUDGE GRAHAM Dailey and Russel, JJ., concur. Announced: May 17, 2007
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No.: 06CA0604 Larimer County District Court No. 05CV614 Honorable James H. Hiatt, Judge Alan Copeland and Nicole Copeland, Plaintiffs Appellees, v. Stephen R.
More information2017COA159. No. 16CA1494, Lakewood v. Armstrong Real Property Easements Appurtenant Easement Deeds Dominant Estate
The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries
More informationNo January 3, P.2d 750
Printed on: 10/20/01 Page # 1 84 Nev. 15, 15 (1968) Meredith v. Washoe Co. Sch. Dist. THOMAS K. MEREDITH and ROSE N. MEREDITH, Appellants, v. WASHOE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, a Political Subdivision of the
More information